Winter Hill Cottage Winter Hill Cookham Maidenhead SL6 9TW Data via plota.co.uk

26/01174/TCA - Works To Trees In Conservation Area Approved

Proposal

(T1) Cotoneaster- Reduce height by 1.5- 2m to leave an approximate final height of 4-5 meters. Reduce side by approximately 1m, leaving a final spread of approximately 4-5m. (T2) Cercis Eastern Redbud- Crown reduce by approximately 4-5m to previous pruning points (pollard points), leaving a final height of 3m. Remove damaged limbs and deadwood. (T3) Bay Tree- Crown thin 20%. Reduce top by 2-3m to give clearance to telephone line, remove crossing, weak or dead branches. Removal of approximately 6/7 of the oldest/largest stems to ground level. Final height of bay approximately 6m with a final spread of 5m. (T4) Lilac- Reduce to leave a final height of approximately 1.5-2m. (T5) Cornus Dogwood- Reduce by approximately 4m, to suitable growth points, leaving a final height of approximately 4m. (T6) Cherry - Fell to ground level, remove stump. (T7) Hazel - Crown thin 30%. Remove secondary/rubbing branches and push back the front side by 1-2m. Removal of 6/7 of the older stems to ground level. Reduce top by 1m to match height of T8. Final height approximately 8-9m with spread 6-7m. (T8) Norway Maple - Reduce height by 1m and 0.5-1m off the sides, leaving a final height of approximately 9m and spread of 5-6m. Data via plota.co.uk

View original council record ↗Last checked

Application progress

✓
Received
11 May 2026
✓
Validated
18 May 2026
✓
Approved
16 Jun 2026

Approved on 16 Jun 2026 · Delegated · Last checked 5 Jul 2026

Documents 24

Other documents 21

PDF Application Forms Application Forms · 18 May 2026 View ↗ PDF Amendmentsummary Supporting Information - General · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Trees photo -t1 cotoneaster pic 1 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t1 cotoneaster pic 2 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t2 eastern redbud pic 1 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t2 eastern redbud pic 2 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t2 eastern redbud pic 3 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t2 eastern redbud pic 4 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Ttree photo -2 eastern redbud pic 5 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo - t2 eastern redbud pic 6 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t3 bay pic 1 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t3 bay pic 2 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t4 lilac pic 1 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t4 lilac pic 2 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t5 dogwood pic 1 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t5 dogwood pic 2 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t6 cherry Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t7 hazel t8 norway maple pic 1 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Tree photo -t7 hazel t8 norway maple pic 2 Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ IMG Winter hill cottage sketch map Supporting Information - Trees · 18 May 2026 View ↗ PDF History log Property History · 18 May 2026 View ↗

All documents on the council site ↗

Site constraints 7

Green belt: London
Inappropriate development needs very special circumstances.
Green belt policy allows a short list of exceptions, such as limited extensions and replacement buildings. Anything else needs very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm. Some green belt land can count as grey belt, where it does not strongly serve the green belt's purposes. The council decides this in its green belt assessment or on each application, so we do not mark it here.
Read the government guidance ↗
Public footpath about 17 m away
Matters where it crosses or adjoins the site: obstructing a path without a diversion order is an offence, and work cannot start until the order is confirmed.
Compiled from highway authority data, not the legal definitive map. A few authorities have not published, so no path shown is not proof there is none.
Habitat network: Network Enhancement Zone 1
Where habitat is joined up enough to work as a network. Context, not a constraint on its own.
Also on the record
Radon affected area, class 2; SSSI about 396 m away: Cock Marsh SSSI; Inside the Cookham built-up area; Natural England's Provisional ALC map (1:250,000, 1970s) had this area as grade 4, but it predates the buildings here and the current map does not class it as farmland.
Not affected
Outside flood zones 2 and 3 · No scheduled monument at the site

Checked on 6 October 2026. The pin for this application is the centre of its postcode rather than the building, so distances to nearby designations are measured from the postcode and can be out by the width of the postcode area. Historic England, the Environment Agency, Natural England, the British Geological Survey and UK Health Security Agency (radon, contains BGS materials © UKRI) and council datasets, Open Government Licence. A boundary can run through a site and the council holds the definitive record: confirm with the council before relying on this.

Sales history 3

Last sold for £3,000,000 in October 2025. Detached house, freehold.

17 October 2025£3,000,000
30 April 2008£1,320,000
3 August 1995£385,000

Sale prices from HM Land Registry's price paid record, matched to this application by its address.

Work with planning data?

Every application in Windsor and Maidenhead - and every UK council - as a live feed, an API, or a bulk CSV export.

About Plota's data service

Important details

Application type
Works To Trees In Conservation Area
Postcode
SL6 9TW
Received
11 May 2026
Validated
18 May 2026
Ward
Bisham And Cookham
Parish
Cookham Parish
Case officer
Show
Target decision
28 Jun 2026
Decision
Application Permitted
Decision date
16 Jun 2026
Decision level
Delegated
Applicant
Show

How this decision compares

Decided in 29 days from validation, 5 days faster than Windsor and Maidenhead's median of 34 for tree and landscaping works. Approved, as 96% of tree and landscaping works here are.

78%decided within 8 weeks
96%approved
340decided in the last year

Plota live figures for tree and landscaping works decided by Windsor and Maidenhead in the last twelve months, from validation. Windsor and Maidenhead decision record →

Consultation & key dates

Alt. reference
PP-14923022
Planning Portal ref
PP-14923022
Statutory expiry
28 Jun 2026
Env. assessment
No
Windsor and Maidenhead
Planning Authority Score
5.3/10
Average
#135 of 296 councils
Relevant to this application:
Other decisions

Windsor and Maidenhead is faster than most councils at deciding householder applications, ranking #82 out of 296. Only 28% of applications have the time limit extended, well below the 41% national average - the council usually decides on time. Windsor and Maidenhead is also one of the strictest councils - it refuses more householder applications than almost any other, with only 74% approved vs 90% nationally.

One of the strictest councils
only 74% approved vs 90% nationally
These figures are council-wide context, not a prediction for this application. View full council performance
Windsor and Maidenhead decision statistics
Based on MHCLG data, the year to March 2026
72%
Overall approval rate
Below avg (87%) #293 of 296
74%
Householder approved
Below avg (90%) #294 of 296
75%
Decided in 8 weeks
Above avg (63%) #82 of 296
28%
Extended time limit
Below avg (41%) #47 of 296
44%
Minor dwellings approved
156 decided (1-9 homes)
96%
Major dwellings approved
27 decided (10+ homes)
64%
Change of use approved
25 decided
1,530
Total decisions
434 refused in the year to March 2026

Sale prices: Contains HM Land Registry data © Crown copyright and database right 2026. This data is licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.